RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
05/12/2025
Friday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
5 December 
1936 The Stalinist Constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1936 the Stalinist constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1484 Pope Innocent VII initiated the "witch hunt".
1456 An earthquake that destroyed Naples occurred - 35 thousand people died.
1456 occurred an earthquake that destroyed Naples - 35 thousand people died.
5 December
1936 The Stalinist Constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1936 the Stalinist constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1484 Pope Innocent VII initiated the "witch hunt".
1456 An earthquake that destroyed Naples occurred - 35 thousand people died.
1456 occurred an earthquake that destroyed Naples - 35 thousand people died.
Not every deal needs to be challenged
The creditor applied to the court for recovery of damages from the arbitration administrator (case no. A32-5239/16).
The courts of two instances satisfied the application, having established that the entrepreneur (seller) and the citizen (buyer) had concluded a contract for the purchase and sale of a land plot.
The financial manager did not appeal the decision of the court of general jurisdiction, which annulled the debtor's ownership right, removed the land from cadastral registration, and placed new land plots with different cadastral addresses on cadastral registration, to which ownership is recognized by the citizen. In the framework of the mentioned case, the courts established the actual area of the alienated land plot and its market value. The application for recognition of the transaction as invalid was refused with reference to the provisions of the law on the limitation period.
The courts, having established that the financial manager reliably knew about the debtor's disputed property from a certain date, and from another date about the disposal of the land from the debtor's property and the completion of the disputed transaction, concluded that the financial manager had missed the limitation period.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, noting that the judicial acts did not contain any conclusions clearly indicating the existence of grounds for declaring the transaction invalid. In the situation under consideration, the courts actually assumed that the disputed transaction would have been declared invalid in any case.
At the same time, the circumstances of the transaction were not established by the courts, conclusions about the flaws of the contested contract were made without taking into account the circumstances established by the court of first instance in determining the circumstances, as well as conclusions regarding the payment made by the defendant under the transaction and his financial ability.
Photo: Freepik
The courts of two instances satisfied the application, having established that the entrepreneur (seller) and the citizen (buyer) had concluded a contract for the purchase and sale of a land plot.
The financial manager did not appeal the decision of the court of general jurisdiction, which annulled the debtor's ownership right, removed the land from cadastral registration, and placed new land plots with different cadastral addresses on cadastral registration, to which ownership is recognized by the citizen. In the framework of the mentioned case, the courts established the actual area of the alienated land plot and its market value. The application for recognition of the transaction as invalid was refused with reference to the provisions of the law on the limitation period.
The courts, having established that the financial manager reliably knew about the debtor's disputed property from a certain date, and from another date about the disposal of the land from the debtor's property and the completion of the disputed transaction, concluded that the financial manager had missed the limitation period.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, noting that the judicial acts did not contain any conclusions clearly indicating the existence of grounds for declaring the transaction invalid. In the situation under consideration, the courts actually assumed that the disputed transaction would have been declared invalid in any case.
At the same time, the circumstances of the transaction were not established by the courts, conclusions about the flaws of the contested contract were made without taking into account the circumstances established by the court of first instance in determining the circumstances, as well as conclusions regarding the payment made by the defendant under the transaction and his financial ability.
Photo: Freepik
25.07.2025
